Attending Obama’s inauguration was an interesting experience for me, to say the least. I have been to the last two inaugurations, both for President Bush. I wondered how an inauguration for President Obama would differ. I also wondered if it would be a positive or negative experience for me, being an Obama detractor.

(more…)

A colleague of mine wrote last month about why he, as a Christian, feels obligated to vote for Barack Obama. To me, this notion is not only delusional but downright scary. I feel that I need to respond to this notion as well as list the almost countless other reasons Barack Obama would do great damage to this country. He is not even qualified to be President of this great nation. (more…)

With the election season now in full swing and Sarah Palin still being assaulted in the media and even by the Women’s Center on Lehigh’s campus, I thought it would be time to set the record straight on just who Sarah Palin is and what she stands for. Hopefully, I will also put to rest some myths along the way.

Sarah Palin was born in Sandpoint, Idaho, in 1964. Her family moved to Alaska shortly thereafter. She attended Wasilla High School, where she was head of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and point guard of the school’s state championship basketball team. In 1984, she finished third in the Miss Alaska pageant and won Miss Congeniality. She also won a college scholarship. In 1987, she graduated from the University of Idaho with a degree in communications-journalism. She married Todd Palin the next year. Todd works in the oil industry on the North Slope and owns a small commercial fishing business.

Sarah entered politics in 1992 with a run for Wasilla City Council. She says she decided to run because she was afraid the new sales tax revenue would not be spent wisely. She won the race and immediately killed a measure to close Wasilla’s bars two hours earlier. She did this even though she was a member of a church that was against the drinking of alcohol. After winning a reelection bid in 1995, Sarah decided to run for mayor in 1996. She defeated a three-term incumbent mayor on a platform of cutting wasteful spending and lowering taxes. One of her first acts as mayor was to cut her own salary. She cut property taxes in the city by 75%, and made many city improvements while cutting unneeded spending. In 1999, she defeated the same opponent with a whopping 74% of the vote and was subsequently elected president of Alaska’s Conference of Mayors.

In 2002, Sarah sought the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor, but lost. Governor Frank Murkowski appointed Palin the chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee. She resigned from the committee in 2004, citing a lack of ethics among fellow Republican members. She filed formal complaints against two fellow Republicans, one of whom was the state party chair. The governor did not take her complaints seriously, so in 2006 she decided to run against him. She defeated the incumbent governor from her own party in the primary and then beat a former governor in the general election. Both of the men against whom Palin filed the original complaint were found guilty and subsequently fined. She became the first female and youngest governor in Alaska’s history. She is also the first Alaskan governor to be born after Alaska became a state. Governor Palin’s first legislative action was to push through a bipartisan ethics reform bill. She put the state jet on eBay and later sold it privately because she did not need it. She championed the oil and natural gas pipeline and secured the funding and permissions required to link the pipeline through Canada to the lower 48 states. In two submitted budgets, Governor Palin has cut $523 million in spending from the Alaska construction budget alone. In 2008, revenues to the state of Alaska doubled to $10 billion and there is no state sales tax or income tax. Also, citizens of the state of Alaska each received $1200 last year as a share of oil revenues from the state.

Governor Palin is a reformer, traditionalist, and conservative. She is committed to doing what she believes to be right, and does so regardless of who she angers along the way. She has stepped on the toes of Democrats and Republicans alike in Alaska, to the benefit of the people she represents. However, not everyone likes her. This month, her approval rating fell to 82%, which happens to be only four times as high as the approval rating for Congress. She stands for lower taxes, less spending, and energy independence. Who would know more about energy policy than the governor of the state that produces 20% of our energy? She is the most qualified person in public office today to talk about how to solve our energy crisis. Sarah Palin supports the surge; her oldest son deployed to Iraq just last week. She is solidly pro-life, having chosen to give birth to a child she knew would have Down syndrome.

At least now we know where the Women’s Center’s priorities lie. They lie not with the advancement of women, but with the advancement of liberalism. If a venue like the Women’s Center cannot support a woman with as impressive a resume as Palin’s, I question the need for their existence. Obviously, Governor Palin should be judged on the issues just like every other candidate. If that was happening, then I would still question the need for the Women’s Center, as their goals will have been accomplished. It is ironic that it took a chauvinistic Republican male (sense the sarcasm) to defend the female vice-Presidential nominee from attacks incurred at the Women’s Center. It took a sexist conservative to defend the only woman in the race based on her merits, qualifications, and views on the issues. Maybe I should run the Women’s Center; women would get a fairer shake.

Myths about Sarah Palin

Myth #1: Sarah Palin tried to censor books in the public library.

Answer: There was never any request made to remove any books from the library, it was a simple inquiry by then-mayor Palin to the librarian.

Myth #2: Sarah Palin improperly took a $58 per diem allowance while she lived at home.

Answer: While the legislature is not in session; Governor Palin works from her office in Anchorage. Instead of taking the allowance for hotels as well, she drives 50 miles to her home in Wasilla. She is well within her rights to take the travel allowance. Her gubernatorial expenses are only 80% of those of the previous governor.

Myth #3: Sarah Palin actually did support the “bridge to nowhere”.

Answer: While Governor Palin did run for governor supporting the bridge, she was responsible for killing the bridge once she became governor. An anti-Ted Stevens, Democratic website actually credits Palin with stopping Stevens’ pork project.

Myth #4: Governor Palin is too inexperienced, and therefore unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Answer: Sarah Palin held elected office five years before Barack Obama. She has more executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined. In fact, she has more executive experience than Barack Obama has legislative experience. She has run a town, a state energy commission, a state with a $10 billion budget, and a small business with her husband. Barack Obama has run for President for two years. It’s quite sad that the Republicans’ vice-Presidential nominee is more qualified than the Democrats’ Presidential nominee. True, she does not have foreign policy experience. Of course, neither did Presidents Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, or Bush, to name a few. Since foreign policy is John McCain’s strong suit, and he is the one who will be President, I am not too worried about the lack of foreign experience.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This past weekend the College Republicans celebrated 2nd Amendment Day. We learned about gun safety and tried our hand at target shooting. The M16 was really cool. More importantly, however, we learned why the 2nd Amendment is so important and why it specifically protects an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. Now, I have to be honest: this event was not an official College Republicans event because Lehigh University would not sanction it. We therefore were not allowed to use any club funds for the event. Apparently, certain administrators did not think this activity was in keeping with the standards of this fine institution. I was amazed to hear that learning to exercise one’s Constitutional right safely and responsibly could pose such a problem. We can offer free HIV tests at the Health Center, but a gun safety course and target shooting? Now that is out of line. I actually thought colleges were supposed to foster a productive and open learning environment. Imagine my shock when I found out that only applies to liberal, hippie ideals such as promiscuous sex and drinking. Of course, with the drug-using, Summer of Love crowd from the 1960s now running our institutions of higher learning, I should have expected this. Here is why the 2nd Amendment is so important and why the Lehigh administration was so close-minded in his denial of this activity.

Just like the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment did not grant a right. This Amendment simply preserved a right that already existed. That right is the right of each person in the United States to bear arms in order to defend him or herself. The framers of our Constitution clearly intended the 2nd Amendment to apply to the individual, not a militia or such. James Madison said: “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” Thomas Jefferson stated, “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” In fact, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the individual’s right to bear arms as an individual right multiple times. Out of the 23 state constitutions adopted before 1845, 20 of them explicitly affirm the individual’s right to bear arms. The other three mention a “collective right.” James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was “calculated to secure the personal rights of the people.” The framers clearly wanted an individual right.

Another point of contention with the 2nd Amendment is that the Amendment applies to the National Guard, not the individual citizen. The first and most obvious counter to this argument is that the National Guard was not formed until a hundred years after the 2nd Amendment was written. Unless our Founding Fathers had better foresight than we even give them credit for, they would not have written an amendment for something that did not yet exist. The more concrete reason why this argument is bogus comes from the Dick Act in 1903. The Dick Act specified that the National Guard is the “organized militia” and that all other citizens are the “unorganized militia.” Therefore, by federal law, all members of the population are part of the militia, thus giving each citizen the individual right to bear arms. Also, the National Guard was not part of the militia at all before 1903. Clearly the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the National Guard.

The next reason the Amendment supports an individual right comes from the text of the 2nd Amendment itself. If you look at the text, the Amendment has two separate clauses in it. The first clause is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” This is the justification clause, that is, it tells us why the Amendment is there. The Founding Fathers recognized that the armed citizen was necessary to maintain a free society, and told us so in this Amendment. The second clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the preservation clause. It guarantees the right based on the justification clause. I ask: would we be able to deny free speech based on the justification for the right?

Next, let us address the issue of assault weapons. Assault weapons are, aside from not being dangerous to the general public, essential in keeping the people free. First, the 1994 assault weapons ban did not reduce crime at all. The ban failed to reduce homicides and only reduced homicides by “assault weapons” a very small amount. Criminals were just using other weapons to commit their crimes. That begs the question: shouldn’t we ban the other guns they are using? I would counter with this: After we ban those guns, shouldn’t we ban the Louisville Slugger they might use after that or the steak knife which would be the next weapon of choice? Charles Krauthammer said it best: “Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move… Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” Criminals will not surrender their assault weapons, guns, baseball bats, or knives, so when you take guns from the public who does that benefit? Assault weapons are also needed for legitimate purposes. During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, many storeowners protected their property and families with so-called “assault weapons.” Those shop owners were the ones who did not get robbed or dragged into the streets and beaten. The police had vacated that part of town; there was no one else there to protect the innocent but the innocent themselves. When civilization breaks down, the only defense we have is that which we can provide ourselves. Adequate weaponry is essential to providing that defense. What if the Jews back in Germany had had weapons for their defense? Can you think of a better way to get the Gestapo off your doorstep than an M16?

The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment is the right that preserves all the others. Once the people are disarmed, it would not be very hard to take away any other right guaranteed by our Constitution. Freedom of speech cannot be defended without the Right to Bear Arms. Those that would deny or limit the 2nd Amendment are not only violating the Constitution, they are acting with extreme irresponsibility and putting all our other freedoms in jeopardy. To try to deny a group of adults the opportunity to learn how to use these weapons responsibly and effectively is incredibly shortsighted and downright stupid. To try to deny college students the opportunity to learn about the history and significance of the 2nd Amendment is corrupt. Someone who would try this has no business at an institution of higher learning. The Lehigh College Republicans would like to offer their sincere thanks to Bob Bajor and the Easton Fish and Game Club for giving us an education Lehigh tried to prevent.

I am now a registered Democrat. There is a sentence I thought I would never say. However, this year, with the GOP nomination already decided and the Democratic race in hot contention, I decided to switch. As a Pennsylvania voter, I have a unique opportunity to make my primary vote count, even if it is not in my party of choice. Most of you know that, by the time a Presidential primary reaches Pennsylvania, the nomination is always well in hand, if not clinched already. This year, Pennsylvania is pivotal in the closest and most exciting primary battle in decades. (Incidentally, it is ironic to me that the one state that did not move up their primary this year to “have their votes count” is now the state with the most influence. Pennsylvania now has 6 weeks with the candidates all to itself; no other state in the picture, but that is another topic.) Some would say it is unethical to switch parties simply to influence the other party’s primary. I dismiss this as both untrue and irrelevant. This assertion is irrelevant because legally I can do it. It is untrue because I have a right to vote. I have a right to express my vote in whichever way I choose to elect the person I want. In this Presidential election, I want to get John McCain elected. Therefore, I will be casting my primary vote against Barack Obama. Yes, that does mean that on April 22 I will actually enter a voting booth, close the curtain, and pull the lever for Hillary Clinton. Then my goal will be to make it to the restroom before vomiting. Voting for Hillary is something I see as a necessary evil in order to get Senator McCain elected President. There are three main reasons why I will be voting for Hillary.

She will be easier to beat in the general election than Barack Obama. This is true for many reasons. The first is that the Democratic Party will be more deeply divided. Barack Obama is in the lead at the moment, and this nomination will almost certainly be decided at convention. The only foreseeable way for Hillary to win the nomination at that point is if the super-delegates vote for her by a wide margin. Blacks are currently voting for Barack Obama at a rate of 10 to 1. Being that Barack is the first black man with a legitimate shot at winning the Presidency, if he lost the nomination at convention, right or wrong it would be seen as racism. They would see it as the establishment once again screwing the black community. Many blacks would be incredibly angry at the Democratic Party and the Clintons. Even if they did not vote for John McCain, it would give McCain an easy win in November.

The Democrats have exactly zero chance to win without the black vote, which they have had in their hip pockets for a generation. Young people are voting for Barack by a 2 to 1 margin. This is the first candidate most young voters have ever been excited about, and his losing could quite possibly turn them off to politics forever. How amazing would that be? Hopefully they would at least stay away long enough to grow a brain and become conservatives. Also, half the country absolutely loathes Hillary Clinton. That half of the country would be energized to stop her from getting elected. That would provide John McCain with a much-needed base and voting bloc. Again, it would be easier to beat Hillary. For some reason, people seem to be in love with Barack Obama even though they know nothing about him. That’s scary. All these theories are confirmed by the latest polls, which show McCain running about 10 points better against Hillary. I would say he would be favored against Hillary and an underdog against Obama. It is essential that she win the nomination.

Even if Hillary does not win the nomination in the end, the closer it is the better. The more infighting that occurs within the Democratic Party, the better it is for the Republicans. The Democrats will trash each other while Senator McCain gets a free pass. Also, Senator McCain gets to raise money while the Democrats spend it. Hillary and Barack are set to spend about $100 million in Pennsylvania. During that time Senator McCain will raise about $50 million. That $150 million swing is an incredible advantage when it comes to the general election. Also, after the nominations become official at convention, the candidates are subject to federal spending limits. This will create an even bigger money advantage for the Republicans. In a down year for the party, this advantage is crucial to victory.

The last reason Hillary should be nominated is that she would be a better President. The bottom line is that if I had to choose between Barack and Hillary, I would be forced to choose Hillary. She is less liberal, less scary, and more qualified. Barack Obama is the most liberal Senator in the United States. Hillary is ranked somewhere in the teens. Could you imagine if we actually elected the most liberal U.S. Senator President? That would be a horrific error. We always talk about the lunatic liberal fringe and how they are so far off the deep end. Now imagine if we put those loonies in the White House. Barack Obama is part of the liberal fringe, my friends. No one realizes this because he screams “change” and Chris Matthews “got shivers on his leg.” No one ever actually researched his positions or his record. He is a media darling. It is impossible to even predict what this man would do if he got into office. That is a risk we cannot take. The damage to this country could be irreparable. The best conservatives have been able to attain in recent decades is slowing the progress of liberalism. We have never been able to roll it back.

For all these reasons and many more, Hillary must win or at least closely contest the nomination. I encourage all Republicans to make their vote count and switch parties. It is also imperative that you vote for Hillary, not Barack. Do not be blinded to the liberalism of Obama by your hatred for the Clintons. You can switch parties up until March 24. The Pennsylvania primary is on April 22. Let’s deliver the state and nomination to Hillary and, in the process, put a conservative that much closer to the White House for another four years. We are only one vote away from a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, after all.

With the primaries now in full swing, a Republican frontrunner has finally emerged. This is at least true according to the mainstream media. His name is Senator John McCain. The media is fascinated with this man. They give him more positive press coverage than I have ever seen a Republican get in my lifetime. This should be good news, right? Maybe not. In my opinion, this coverage is a direct result of the media wanting to destroy the platform of the Republican Party. John McCain is an American hero; no one can deny that. He served his country honorably in Vietnam, being held as a POW for five years. However, I do not want him anywhere near the White House. There are many reasons why.

The first reason is his incredible ambition for the Office of the President of the United States. While ambition is not something I consider a bad thing, it can be when you would do anything to win the office. Senator McCain once said: “Presidential ambition is a disease that is only cured by embalming fluid.” Somehow, John McCain has the reputation as the candidate in this race who sticks to his principles no matter what. He claims to be the “straight talk express” and the media has never challenged this assertion. Senator McCain’s ambition for the White House has caused him to change his stance on many issues. In 2000, he was the maverick and outsider. He did what he thought was right and did not waiver. I will be the first to give him credit for that. However, when he lost the nomination that year to then Governor George W. Bush, he began to adjust his positions and associations. He sought to become the next Republican establishment candidate. He campaigned very hard for President Bush in the 2004 election. He currently seeks the support of hard line conservatives and subtly changes his positions with the polls. In fact, the only position he has not waivered on is the War in Iraq. He has always been a strong advocate for winning the war and came up with a good strategy to do so. But if you think John McCain would be the best choice for President, that feeling cannot be based on his record. Let’s take a look at Senator McCain’s three biggest legislative initiatives in the past six years.

Number one is the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill. This seems like a good issue to tackle. Most people agree that money has become too influential in politics and the system needs to be tweaked a little bit. This bill was not the fix that was needed. The bill worked to severely curtail the First Amendment. The bill does two things. First, it limits the amount of money that can be given to a Presidential candidate. The limits are actually quite low. This does not allow candidates to reach their full potential in any election. The biggest problem with the bill, though, is the “issue advertising” provision. This provision outlaws any ads by issue-oriented organizations within 60 days of a general election. That is a clear violation of free speech. Most conservatives agree that organizations should be able to run ads in support of any candidate based on an issue that is important to them.

Second is the McCain-Lieberman Stewardship Act. This act will put steep federal restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. If you have read any of my previous writings, you know how I feel about global warming, so I will not get into that. The problem with this bill, as with all global warming legislation both in the USA and around the world, is that it caps America’s emissions while leaving the rest of the world alone. The issue is, in fact, global warming, not America warming. All this legislation will do is force more American jobs overseas, where the restrictions do not apply. Also, it is estimated that gas would rise an additional 50 cents per gallon as a result of this legislation. That will make Americans happy every week when they fill up. Even those conservatives that agree with global warming alarmists also agree that any restrictions should not be unfair to America on a global scale.

The last, and worst, legislation McCain has supported in recent years is the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill. This bill would allow all illegal immigrants (excluding criminals) to pay a mere $3,000 fine to remain in this country forever. Oh yeah, they would have to pay their taxes for as long as they have been here as well. Crossing the border into this country illegally is a felony. This bill lets the perpetrators off the hook with a slap on the wrist, while prospective immigrants who respect our laws wait in their home countries unable to get visas. This bill, which McCain interestingly no longer supports, is pure amnesty, no bones about it. He also voted to allow illegal immigrants to participate in social security. Senator McCain would fail to secure the border, again something conservatives demand.

John McCain also voted twice against the Bush tax cuts. He actually justified his opposition by labeling them tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Sound familiar? I believe it was Teddy Kennedy who invented that phrase. In retrospect, the Bush tax cuts created five years of economic growth. McCain must realize this as well; he has since voted twice to make the tax cuts permanent. He also opposes water boarding. While this is good as a matter of policy, he has said he would never even consider it. If it were my family or millions of other American families in danger, I would want to know that my President would do everything in his power to protect them. That is the main responsibility of the President, after all. Subjecting a terrorist to less than a minute of discomfort is a small price to pay for saving American lives.

The bottom line is that nominating John McCain for President would be a profound mistake for the Republican Party. Think about this for a moment. If McCain wins the Presidency, he will shape policy for the party for the next eight years. That would effectively kill the conservative agenda for the party. He is wrong on the economy, immigration, global warming, national security, and free speech. The only thing McCain has right is the War in Iraq. It would be incredibly hard for the party to ever move back to the right and to the principles conservatives hold dear. The alternative is that McCain could lose the election. In that case, the party platform would only be destroyed for four years. However, during those four years, either Hillary Clinton (and Bill of course) or Barack Obama would be President. That is possibly the scariest thing I can imagine. With Mike Huckabee basically out of the running and Ron Paul never having had a legitimate shot, the only option for conservatives has become Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney advocates all the positions of true conservatives. He would advance the party platform in the mold of Ronald Reagan and keep us on the right track as a nation. It is essential that he be elected President later this year.